Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 11 (2/2)

_I answer that,_ Origen (Peri Archon i, 7, 8; ii, 8) maintained that all souls, amongst which he placed Christ's soul, were created in the beginning. But this is not fitting, if we suppose that it was first of all created, but not at once joined to the Word, since it would follow that this soul once had its proper subsistence without the Word; and thus, since it was a.s.sumed by the Word, either the union did not take place in the subsistence, or the pre-existing subsistence of the soul was corrupted. So likewise it is not fitting to suppose that this soul was united to the Word from the beginning, and that it afterwards became incarnate in the womb of the Virgin; for thus His soul would not seem to be of the same nature as ours, which are created at the same time that they are infused into bodies.

Hence Pope Leo says (Ep. ad Julian. x.x.xv) that ”Christ's flesh was not of a different nature to ours, nor was a different soul infused into it in the beginning than into other men.”

Reply Obj. 1: As was said above (A. 1), the soul of Christ is said to be the medium in the union of the flesh with the Word, in the order of nature; but it does not follow from this that it was the medium in the order of time.

Reply Obj. 2: As Pope Leo says in the same Epistle, Christ's soul excels our soul ”not by diversity of genus, but by sublimity of power”; for it is of the same genus as our souls, yet excels even the angels in ”fulness of grace and truth.” But the mode of creation is in harmony with the generic property of the soul; and since it is the form of the body, it is consequently created at the same time that it is infused into and united with the body; which does not happen to angels, since they are substances entirely free from matter.

Reply Obj. 3: Of the fulness of Christ all men receive according to the faith they have in Him; for it is written (Rom. 3:22) that ”the justice of G.o.d is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe in Him.” Now just as we believe in Him as already born; so the ancients believed in Him as about to be born, since ”having the same spirit of faith ... we also believe,” as it is written (2 Cor. 4:13). But the faith which is in Christ has the power of justifying by reason of the purpose of the grace of G.o.d, according to Rom. 4:5: ”But to him that worketh not, yet believeth in Him that justifieth the unG.o.dly, his faith is reputed to justice according to the purpose of the grace of G.o.d.” Hence because this purpose is eternal, there is nothing to hinder some from being justified by the faith of Jesus Christ, even before His soul was full of grace and truth.

_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 6, Art. 4]

Whether the Flesh of Christ Was a.s.sumed by the Word Before Being United to the Soul?

Objection 1: It would seem that the flesh of Christ was a.s.sumed by the Word before being united to the soul. For Augustine [*Fulgentius]

says (De Fide ad Petrum xviii): ”Most firmly hold, and nowise doubt that the flesh of Christ was not conceived in the womb of the Virgin without the G.o.dhead before it was a.s.sumed by the Word.” But the flesh of Christ would seem to have been conceived before being united to the rational soul, because matter or disposition is prior to the completive form in order of generation. Therefore the flesh of Christ was a.s.sumed before being united to the soul.

Obj. 2: Further, as the soul is a part of human nature, so is the body. But the human soul in Christ had no other principle of being than in other men, as is clear from the authority of Pope Leo, quoted above (A. 3). Therefore it would seem that the body of Christ had no other principle of being than we have. But in us the body is begotten before the rational soul comes to it. Therefore it was the same in Christ; and thus the flesh was a.s.sumed by the Word before being united to the soul.

Obj. 3: Further, as is said (De Causis), the first cause excels the second in bringing about the effect, and precedes it in its union with the effect. But the soul of Christ is compared to the Word as a second cause to a first. Hence the Word was united to the flesh before it was to the soul.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 2): ”At the same time the Word of G.o.d was made flesh, and flesh was united to a rational and intellectual soul.” Therefore the union of the Word with the flesh did not precede the union with the soul.

_I answer that,_ The human flesh is a.s.sumable by the Word on account of the order which it has to the rational soul as to its proper form.

Now it has not this order before the rational soul comes to it, because when any matter becomes proper to any form, at the same time it receives that form; hence the alteration is terminated at the same instant in which the substantial form is introduced. And hence it is that the flesh ought not to have been a.s.sumed before it was human flesh; and this happened when the rational soul came to it. Therefore since the soul was not a.s.sumed before the flesh, inasmuch as it is against the nature of the soul to be before it is united to the body, so likewise the flesh ought not to have been a.s.sumed before the soul, since it is not human flesh before it has a rational soul.

Reply Obj. 1: Human flesh depends upon the soul for its being; and hence, before the coming of the soul, there is no human flesh, but there may be a disposition towards human flesh. Yet in the conception of Christ, the Holy Ghost, Who is an agent of infinite might, disposed the matter and brought it to its perfection at the same time.

Reply Obj. 2: The form actually gives the species; but the matter in itself is in potentiality to the species. And hence it would be against the nature of a form to exist before the specific nature. And therefore the dissimilarity between our origin and Christ's origin, inasmuch as we are conceived before being animated, and Christ's flesh is not, is by reason of what precedes the perfection of the nature, viz. that we are conceived from the seed of man, and Christ is not. But a difference which would be with reference to the origin of the soul, would bespeak a diversity of nature.

Reply Obj. 3: The Word of G.o.d is understood to be united to the flesh before the soul by the common mode whereby He is in the rest of creatures by essence, power, and presence. Yet I say ”before,” not in time, but in nature; for the flesh is understood as a being, which it has from the Word, before it is understood as animated, which it has from the soul. But by the personal union we understand the flesh as united to the soul before it is united to the Word, for it is from its union with the soul that it is capable of being united to the Word in Person; especially since a person is found only in the rational nature.

_______________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 6, Art. 5]

Whether the Whole Human Nature Was a.s.sumed Through the Medium of the Parts?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Son of G.o.d a.s.sumed the whole human nature through the medium of its parts. For Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xviii) that ”the invisible and unchangeable Truth a.s.sumed the soul through the medium of the spirit, and the body through the medium of the soul, and in this way the whole man.” But the spirit, soul, and body are parts of the whole man. Therefore He a.s.sumed all, through the medium of the parts.

Obj. 2: Further, the Son of G.o.d a.s.sumed flesh through the medium of the soul because the soul is more like to G.o.d than the body. But the parts of human nature, since they are simpler than the body, would seem to be more like to G.o.d, Who is most simple, than the whole.

Therefore He a.s.sumed the whole through the medium of the parts.

Obj. 3: Further, the whole results from the union of parts. But the union is taken to be the term of the a.s.sumption, and the parts are presupposed to the a.s.sumption. Therefore He a.s.sumed the whole by the parts.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 16): ”In our Lord Jesus Christ we do not behold parts of parts, but such as are immediately joined, i.e. the G.o.dhead and the manhood.” Now the humanity is a whole, which is composed of soul and body, as parts.

Therefore the Son of G.o.d a.s.sumed the parts through the medium of the whole.

_I answer that,_ When anything is said to be a medium in the a.s.sumption of the Incarnation, we do not signify order of time, because the a.s.sumption of the whole and the parts was simultaneous.

For it has been shown (AA. 3, 4) that the soul and body were mutually united at the same time in order to const.i.tute the human nature of the Word. But it is order of nature that is signified. Hence by what is prior in nature, that is a.s.sumed which is posterior in nature. Now a thing is prior in nature in two ways: First on the part of the agent, secondly on the part of the matter; for these two causes precede the thing. On the part of the agent--that is simply first, which is first included in his intention; but that is relatively first, with which his operation begins--and this because the intention is prior to the operation. On the part of the matter--that is first which exists first in the trans.m.u.tation of the matter. Now in the Incarnation the order depending on the agent must be particularly considered, because, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Volusianum cx.x.xvii), ”in such things the whole reason of the deed is the power of the doer.” But it is manifest that, according to the intention of the doer, what is complete is prior to what is incomplete, and, consequently, the whole to the parts. Hence it must be said that the Word of G.o.d a.s.sumed the parts of human nature, through the medium of the whole; for even as He a.s.sumed the body on account of its relation to the rational soul, so likewise He a.s.sumed a body and soul on account of their relation to human nature.

<script>